4 ms·

> ensured the man cannot access [his] largesse How? Sounds like his address / public key is known but only he (if anyone) as the private key. What steps from a

> ensured the man cannot access [his] largesse How? Sounds like his address / public key is known but only he (if anyone) as the private key. What steps from an authority, besides an exogenous threat like being charged again is any balance moves, could they take?

candiodari 6y ago
Depends. They could have erased his pc, and have access to an encrypted file, in the hope that he has no backups of the keys anywhere. Of course that wouldn't work with either basic precautions or "memory" or "paper" wallets. TLDR: either the prosecutor is stupid, or they lie. I'm not sure which is worse.
- ur-whale 6y ago
  >TLDR: either the prosecutor is stupid, or they lie. I'm not sure which is worse. Or both.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Or they look at how often normal people actually back things up? Or they got a court order (or whatever the term of art is) saying, effectively “memo to all banks: this person owes us XYZ in Bitcoin, he’s paying that back out of future bank balances”?
ur-whale 6y ago
I think the explanation is simple: the person who wrote the article doesn't seem to understand how bitcoin works. For all the police knows, the encrypted secret key could be backed up in a gazillion places (cloud, tape, paper wallet, hidden CD-ROM, USB key buried in garden, memorized 12 word seed, etc...). For a properly prepared Bitcoin owner, there is no such thing as "preventing someone from accessing their Bitcoin" other than holding them in a jail cell with no internet access for the rest of their natural lives.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- buran77 6y ago
  They will also monitor the wallet and the moment it's accessed in any way more indictments follow. The money officially belong to the authorities now so touching them is theft. He can't claim it was hacked, there's no reasonable way to hack a wallet, and if there was there are far more valuable wallets to target. He'll also never be able to report it if he's ever robbed of that money.
  - anonymousab 6y ago
    Sure. It remains unclear that anything is preventing him from going to a different country without extradition once his sentence is completed and withdrawing the coins there.
  - lazide 6y ago
    Depends. He might be able to sell the keys to a third party (who those authorities have no access to), for a discount in say cash or something where the transaction isn’t logged, and then be obviously not touching it when transactions or moves occurs - perhaps in court talking to a judge, or something similar. It’s hard to separate something like that from someone finding an old key/seed backup or the like, which I don’t think anyone would consider a proper prosecution. There is also a plausible scenario like a gov’t or court appointee actually getting or cracking the password somehow and stealing it themselves, like what happened with a significant Bitcoin balance related to Silk Road that got seized and then stolen from under the gov’ts nose by a secret service agent.
    - est31 6y ago
      Germany has recently passed a law which allows the government to seize property where the source of the money is not clear. This was done originally to prevent arabic clans from buying rental properties around the country, but I can imagine it applying to whatever money he's got from that sale as well.

candiodari 6y ago

Depends. They could have erased his pc, and have access to an encrypted file, in the hope that he has no backups of the keys anywhere. Of course that wouldn't work with either basic precautions or "memory" or "paper" wallets. TLDR: either the prosecutor is stupid, or they lie. I'm not sure which is worse.

ur-whale 6y ago
>TLDR: either the prosecutor is stupid, or they lie. I'm not sure which is worse. Or both.
ben_w 6y ago
Or they look at how often normal people actually back things up? Or they got a court order (or whatever the term of art is) saying, effectively “memo to all banks: this person owes us XYZ in Bitcoin, he’s paying that back out of future bank balances”?

ur-whale 6y ago

I think the explanation is simple: the person who wrote the article doesn't seem to understand how bitcoin works. For all the police knows, the encrypted secret key could be backed up in a gazillion places (cloud, tape, paper wallet, hidden CD-ROM, USB key buried in garden, memorized 12 word seed, etc...). For a properly prepared Bitcoin owner, there is no such thing as "preventing someone from accessing their Bitcoin" other than holding them in a jail cell with no internet access for the rest of their natural lives.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
buran77 6y ago
They will also monitor the wallet and the moment it's accessed in any way more indictments follow. The money officially belong to the authorities now so touching them is theft. He can't claim it was hacked, there's no reasonable way to hack a wallet, and if there was there are far more valuable wallets to target. He'll also never be able to report it if he's ever robbed of that money.
- anonymousab 6y ago
  Sure. It remains unclear that anything is preventing him from going to a different country without extradition once his sentence is completed and withdrawing the coins there.
- lazide 6y ago
  Depends. He might be able to sell the keys to a third party (who those authorities have no access to), for a discount in say cash or something where the transaction isn’t logged, and then be obviously not touching it when transactions or moves occurs - perhaps in court talking to a judge, or something similar. It’s hard to separate something like that from someone finding an old key/seed backup or the like, which I don’t think anyone would consider a proper prosecution. There is also a plausible scenario like a gov’t or court appointee actually getting or cracking the password somehow and stealing it themselves, like what happened with a significant Bitcoin balance related to Silk Road that got seized and then stolen from under the gov’ts nose by a secret service agent.
  - est31 6y ago
    Germany has recently passed a law which allows the government to seize property where the source of the money is not clear. This was done originally to prevent arabic clans from buying rental properties around the country, but I can imagine it applying to whatever money he's got from that sale as well.